Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 3 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, April 26, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:00 p.m. to study the operation of the Official Languages Act, and of regulations and directives made thereunder, within those institutions subject to the Act, as well as the reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The Honourable Maria Chaput (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I would like to welcome the Honourable Denis Coderre as well as his two colleagues who will be joining us shortly.
Unfortunately, we have only one hour to hear the three ministers responsible for the official languages plan and to ask them our questions. I will therefore have to strictly enforce the time allocated to each person.
You will have five minutes to do a brief presentation. We will then go to question period. Then, Mr. Coderre, I will give you the documents prepared by our researcher as well as a list of questions that we did not get around to asking. In the letter accompanying those documents, we ask that you respond within ten days, because we would like to get an answer before the election, should there be one.
I would now like to welcome the Honourable Hélène Chalifour Scherrer and the Honourable Pierre Pettigrew to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
We will begin with the Honourable Pierre Pettigrew's presentation.
The Honourable Pierre Pettigrew, P.C., Member of Parliament, Minister of Health, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister Responsible for Official Languages: I am very happy to be here today. The Speech from the Throne delivered on February 2, 2004, reiterates that linguistic duality is central to the identity of our country. It characterizes us and opens doors to us around the world — this I was able to observe when I was Minister of International Trade.
Our government intends to preserve, strengthen and promote bilingualism, which is an asset to all Canadians. We have clearly indicated that the values and principles underlying the official languages policy are something that we hold dear. For the first time in the history of our country, there is a minister responsible for official languages. The Prime Minister mandated me to assume responsibility for official languages. That is a specific recognition.
Some people have suggested that the health and intergovernmental affairs portfolios that I have been assigned in addition to official languages constitute such a heavy workload that I will not be able to do justice to official languages.
My experience over the past few months has shown that these other responsibilities have made it possible for me to be a member of cabinet committees that are useful for promoting official languages. This coordination also enables me to deal with official languages at each of my meetings with the provinces. As you know, under the action plan, we have to convince the provincial ministers responsible to work with us in this area.
The fact that I have multiple responsibilities has thus benefited official languages rather than making things harder for me.
We are very actively following through on the action plan. I have committed to hold meetings on a more regular basis with the seven ministers responsible in this area.
Minister Goodale stated publicly, and told me privately as well, that the budget allowance for this action plan would not be affected by program review, among other things. So the budget of around $750 million will not be cut. Our action plan, with its protected budget allowance, will therefore give a new boost to linguistic duality in Canada.
Accountability is very important. The accountability and coordination framework includes a whole series of items that strengthen horizontal coordination. It describes the role of the minister responsible for official languages and the other supporting ministers.
The minister is responsible for the overview of the file. He ensures that priorities are communicated to the government, that key stakeholders are contacted, that matters pertaining to official languages are brought to the attention of cabinet members, and that the government's opinion is reflected in typical files that have an impact on official languages.
Section 35 of the framework states that the group of ministers automatically includes Ms. Sherrer, Minister of Canadian Heritage, Mr. Coderre, Minister of the Privy Council, as well as the Minister of Justice and certain other ministers.
The mandate of this ministerial group is taken from our action plan. It is directly linked to the mandate of the responsible minister, particularly with respect to coordination and communication between the government, minority communities, the Commissioner of Official Languages and the House of Commons committees.
This enhanced cohesion between portfolios illustrates our government's priority.
[English]
Under the framework that I have just described, regular consultations must be held at the highest levels with stakeholders, including the community, so this is how the action plan was designed and this is how it is being carried out.
The next ministerial consultations will take place in the fall of 2004, and discussions between government officials and community leaders have already taken place in preparation for these meetings.
As you asked me to be brief, I will stop here, but I will gladly answer your questions after my colleagues have made their own introductory remarks.
[Translation]
The Honourable Denis Coderre, PC, MP, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians, Minister Responsible for the Francophonie and Minister Responsible for the Official of Indian Residential Schools Resolution: I am very proud to be here today. Although this is my third ministry, this is the first time that I've had an opportunity to appear before a committee of the Senate.
If I may, I would initially like to congratulate the honourable senator Gauthier, a great defender of our French language, for his nomination as honourary chair of this committee.
It is with pleasure that I appear before you today. As the President of the Privy Council, my role is a little bit more technical. Since the restructuring of the government with respect to my official languages responsibility as minister responsible for the new Human Resources Management Agency of Canada, I can confirm to you my firm commitment to official languages.
In carrying out our duties, my colleagues here and I are always very proud of what we are and we have always worked very hard. We strongly believe in the linguistic duality that is at the very core of our Canadian identity and which is firmly entrenched in our Canadian values.
Following the government's announcement of December 12, 2003, the legislative and administrative duties and responsibilities pertaining to official languages were transferred from the President of the Treasury Board and the Treasury Board Secretariat to the President of the Privy Council and the new management agency. This was done by order of the Governor in Council pursuant to the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. Everything that pertains to the public service with respect to official languages and human resources is now under my purview.
Also, as President of the Privy Council, I am responsible for the new public service of Canada school.
The message that we want to convey to you today is as follows: it is imperative that official languages be respected both in the services we provide and in the workplace.
I would like to point out the wonderful contribution made by the Honourable Lucienne Robillard who, when she was President of the Treasury Board, played an important role particularly in the area of staffing.
Policies with respect to imperative staffing have been established and I fully agree with them. Nevertheless, we need to go even further. When there is imperative staffing for bilingual positions, we have to ensure, initially, that these individuals are bilingual, but we also have to ensure that there is some follow-up and assessment so that these people will remain so. We have to be able to evaluate the quality of the services provides in both official languages.
I alluded to the management school. In my opinion, learning languages is just as important as ongoing training in financial management.
Training in official languages must not be limited.
[English]
We are not talking about simply learning to speak a language, rather, we are talking about a culture in which linguistic duality — bilingualism — is clearly a Canadian value. We also want to ensure that specific positions with bilingual staffing requirements have people who are officially bilingual. That is not only important for the delivery of the service but also for the creation of a proper environment for those men and women who are doing a tremendous job in the Public Service of Canada.
[Translation]
The issue of respect pertains not only to clients by also to the workplace, to the people who work there and who, as public servants, bring about change, and this is done in both official languages.
Madam Chair, I could obviously answer some of your questions with respect to evaluation, communications and services to the public, and everything that pertains to the main instrument for giving effect to Part IV of the Official Languages Act and the Official Languages Regulations, communications with and services to the public. We feel it is important that these regulations state that the published results of the most recent decennial population census are to be used for determining the obligation of the offices of federal institutions to communicate with and offer services to the public in both official languages.
This is not just about determining whether or not everything is operating smoothly, it is also about ensuring that we have a broad perspective using very specific evaluation tools that will enable us to ensure that the wonderful values that make up bilingualism are indeed respected.
[English]
Thank you for this opportunity. I would be more than pleased to take your questions.
[Translation]
The Honourable Hélène Chalifour Scherrer, PC, MP, Minister of Canadian Heritage: Thank you, Madam Chair. My two colleagues have skipped some of their paragraphs; I thought that I had a very wonderful address, but now I feel that I should shorten it so that everyone can then ask their questions.
You are all familiar with the issues pertaining to the promotion of Canada's official languages and I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss them with you. As Minister of Canadian Heritage, I am responsible for implementing programs to support official languages. These programs are essentially designed to provide linguistic minorities with the tools they need to develop and to promote the use of French and English in Canadian society.
The department that I have had the privilege of running for nearly four months is at the heart of the government's efforts to support official language communities and to promote linguistic duality. I can assure you that I will pay special attention to this file which is very dear to me, given that I am myself a francophone Quebecer.
I will now discuss the challenges before us, challenges that we must meet right across the country. As far as minority communities are concerned, everything is a question of access. This is especially true for francophones who live on a continent where the majority is anglophone and who live near a cultural giant.
[English]
I am talking about access to high quality education in their first language plus second language training; access to services in their first language and to institutions that enhance community life; and, of course, access to arts and culture in French and in English throughout Canada. For Canadians it is also a question of access to immersion programs and second language training.
I intend to work on these with determination over the weeks and months to come.
[Translation]
As far as access to education is concerned — obviously, education is at the core of the government's official languages plan — we will be giving the provinces and territories $346 million over the next five years in targeted funding for education, and this amount will be added to the $820 million that we will be giving to the provinces and territories for education over the same period.
Two hundred and nine million additional dollars will be earmarked for teaching in the minority language. I would like to remind you that scarcely 20 years ago, there were not even any French schools in many provinces; with the exception of New Brunswick, in 1990, and a few other francophone communities in Ontario, no minority community in the country managed its schools. Today, in each province and territory, these communities are managing all of their schools. The progress has been remarkable, but we need to do this even better. We have set ourselves an objective to increase the percentage of francophone children who enrol from 68 to 80 per cent.
[English]
In Quebec, we will also use the resources at our disposal and the potential offered by new technology for distance education in order to ensure that young anglophones living in remote areas have access to education in their language. Concerning the teaching of second languages, we have an additional $137 million that will help us to achieve the objective of doubling, within 10 years, the proportion of high school graduates who can speak both official languages.
[Translation]
The second component is access to institutions and services.
[English]
To achieve their potential, francophones and anglophones in minority communities must be able to live in their language. That means they must have access to services in their language and to institutions that support their development. They now have well developed community networks.
[Translation]
For example, over the years, Canadian Heritage support programs for official languages have funded 70 community and cultural centres in most regions of the country, including some 20 community centres directly associated with minority schools. We also support 18 community radio stations, 7 French-language community radio stations and 7 English-language community radio stations.
The third component involves access to culture, which is inextricable from language. Both are foundations of individual and collective identity. Access to culture is even more important in minority communities, because culture is closely linked with the community's identity and the future of its language.
Financing for the Canadian Television Fund has been restored to its former level of $100 million, making it possible to add hundreds of hours of French-language TV programming across Canada. The Government of Canada has also announced renewed funding, for a fourth year, for the program Tomorrow Starts Today, to support arts and culture in communities. The initiative still has $207 million in its budget for this year.
Cultural Spaces Canada is designed to improve cultural infrastructure in communities. We also have a program called Arts Presentation Canada, with which you are already familiar, which contributes to enriching performing arts programming broadcast in all parts of Canada. And with all the new technologies available, through Canadian Culture Online we have invested $200 million over three years in the creation of Canadian content on the Internet. We have a Book Publishing Industry Development Program, which has now been in place for 25 years. Under this initiative, 102 out of 220 French-language publishers receive support. Other national institutions, such as the Canada Council for the Arts, National Film Board of Canada and Telefilm Canada contribute to showcasing our two official languages and provide support for our creative artists in minority language communities.
In all aspects, be it access to education, services in the minority language or arts and culture — our actions attest to our commitment to ensuring that all francophones and anglophones have the means to flourish.
I would like to assure you that I am putting my shoulder to the wheel, and intend to work very closely with my colleagues and all stakeholders to strengthen our linguistic duality.
I would be happy to take your questions.
The Chairman: We will now move on to questions, which is what all committee members have been looking forward to.
Senator Gauthier: Mr. Pettigrew, you have an action plan: $751 million committed over five years. Do you have any accountability measures, for example? Measures to ensure that programs are well-coordinated among agencies and departments not represented here this evening? Will you, who are responsible for official languages, do the follow-up that needs to be done? Mr. Dion assured us that he would. You have now replaced him. Are there any measures in place to ensure that the action plan will be properly applied and monitored?
Mr. Pettigrew: Accountability is very important in the follow-up to our action plan. We have established significant accountability measures for each component of the plan. I am also determined to meet regularly with all of the ministers who have responsibilities under the action plan.
I have already held a working meeting a few weeks ago, at which I stated that there would be a working meeting every quarter — for a year — at which all ministers with responsibilities under the action plan will report and explain the investments they have made.
Senator Gauthier: Have you established measures to ensure that programs are followed up and that there is a transparent and public accountability mechanism?
Mr. Pettigrew: There is already an accountability framework that I can share with senators.
Senator Gauthier: But this does not imply that there will be regular contacts between people acting on your behalf and parliamentarians interested in the issue.
Mr. Pettigrew: We have established a fairly official accountability framework within which people will be required to report and meet set objectives. As Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I monitor progress with each province because I know that much of the funding flows from negotiations associated with transfers to the provinces.
Senator Rivest: I have a question for Minister Coderre. In the action plan which has been in place for a year now, we noted that, on the whole, French was under used in the public service. Have you measured that under use? In the past year, what concrete measures has the federal government taken to remedy this problem?
Mr. Coderre: I do not have any numbers for you today, though I can tell you that there is a new approach to monitoring. It is extremely important for us to have prevention monitoring and assessment tools. Earlier, when I spoke about putting the new Public Service Human Resources Management Agency into perspective as part of the new public service school concept, I also meant to send the message that there will be ongoing training so that we ensure — for bilingual imperative positions — that we have bilingual people in positions that need bilingual people. We also need the tools to make horizontal assessments. In other words, in every department and agency, we have established a new conceptual model which I can send you — which makes it possible for us to conduct assessments internally and externally. In practical terms, those assessments take us into each department so that we can take human resources measures to ensure the equitable approach we need within the public service, and for which I am responsible.
We are now finalizing the work environment analysis of the Official Languages Commissioner. Together, all these components will give us the tools we need to take action. We do not want to take an ad hoc approach, but rather to ensure that we work on the culture of the public service, so that we can better meet today's requirements while maintaining our Canadian values.
Senator Comeau: I find it very interesting to have three ministers here today. I welcome all three of them. My first question, on schools, training and development, is for Minister Coderre.
Minister Coderre, have you considered providing training and development through existing schools? There are excellent schools in Canada that would benefit from having more students. There would be another advantage as well, because public servants would rub shoulders with other Canadians.
If you did consider this option, why did you reject it, and why do you not wish to send senior officials to existing institutions?
Mr. Coderre: My role includes responsibility for the school, but operations and the actual curriculum will be dealt with by the head of the school, Ms. Cochrane. I would encourage you to invite her, because she would be able to give you more specifics about how the schools will operate and about the options we have considered. My responsibility is to table the report and make it clear that training, particularly language training, regardless of how it is provided — this is set out in Bill C-25, the public service modernization bill — is a living tool. I am not saying we have rejected that option. I am taking your comments under advisement, but through the chair I would advise you to speak to Ms. Cochrane about details on operations and procedure.
Senator Comeau: Since you are the minister, should you not have asked her that question?
Mr. Coderre: I asked her many questions.
Senator Comeau: Did you ask her whether she had considered using existing schools that have been in place for years, and which as far as I know are extremely good? I would have thought that you, as minister, would have been interested in knowing why that option had either not been considered, or had been rejected.
Mr. Coderre: Nothing has been rejected. The Canada School of Public Service officially opened on April 1. Obviously, there is an ongoing study on language training. I take your question under advisement. I think your suggestion would be very useful. But here again, it is important for the school to bring together once-disparate activities so that we send a very clear measure that training in a renewed public service is a priority for this government. In fact, language training is as important today as ongoing financial management training. I am certainly taking your question under advisement, and I will ensure that the message gets across.
Senator Comeau: I have a question for Mr. Pettigrew. You have two primary responsibilities: one is implementation and the other is assessment. The two might initially appear to be in conflict: on one hand you are responsible for implementing measures and on the other hand you are responsible for assessing those measures yourself. Is there not a conflict there?
Mr. Pettigrew: I do not think so. Other people will measure assessments as well. There are parliamentary committees like yours before which we must appear, and report. I am responsible for coordinating the government's actions for a variety of responsibilities, and we will establish a transparent assessment grid. We are developing individual components at this time.
An overall assessment will be presented publicly. We are now establishing a framework for it. Minority community representatives are already involved in the process, and I think it will all work very well.
Senator Comeau: You do not see a conflict there?
Mr. Pettigrew: No, I do not.
[English]
Senator Munson: Minister, you are a passionate politician. Do you really feel you can do justice to so many portfolios? Being the Minister of Health is a big job. Do you believe that you can give enough focus and time to official languages, intergovernmental affairs, and handle the portfolio of health minister at the same time?
Mr. Pettigrew: As the minister for Quebec and the member for Papineau, I do it.
As I was saying earlier, if you take health and intergovernmental affairs, my view is that about two-thirds of the problems in the federation, the responsibility of the intergovernmental affairs minister, are related to health. You have a good economy of scale there. Two-thirds of the problems of the provinces are in the health sector. As the person who is responsible for both health and intergovernmental affairs, I can tell you I do not have to spend too much time on consultations between intergovernmental affairs people and those who deal with health issues, because I can promote and negotiations with the provinces.
When you are in health and intergovernmental affairs, because those are given such a high priority, you are on the government operations committee of the cabinet and you are in the priorities and planning group. You are a key player in the government. I am everywhere, where it counts. That it gives me the authority to ensure that the people do the right work on health.
The plan was developed by my predecessor, Mr. Dion, who did a great job. Now we are moving to the implementation of that action plan. Now that the plan has been developed, there is less work for the coordinator. The work belongs to each of those who are responsible for an aspect of implementing it.
My view is that the fact that the Minister responsible for official languages is at the heart of the government and sits on the right committees where decisions are made is worth a great deal to the minority communities.
Senator Munson: You said in your opening statement that linguistic dualities are at the heart of this country. Here, we live at the heart of linguistic dualities, yet Ottawa is not officially bilingual. I do not want to sound like I have been around for a long time. When I first came to Ottawa in 1972, there was talk about an officially bilingual Ottawa. I left for a while and, when I came back I witnesses my colleague Senator Gauthier both in the House of Commons and in the Senate, being very passionate about this issue as are the rest of us. The Senate passed a unanimous motion.
With that background, have you met the Premier of Ontario or are you going to meet Ottawa mayor Bob Chiarelli? Do you not think it is about time that we show off the City of Ottawa as officially bilingual?
Mr. Pettigrew: I am not of your generation, so I have not been here so long. I was first here in 1976-77. I, too, for a very long time have hoped for a bilingual Ottawa. The Premier of Ontario, Mr. Dalton McGuinty, is on record as saying he would support that. His minister, Madam Madeleine Meilleur has also said that she supports a bilingual Ottawa. We are on the right track for that. My view is that we will shortly have a bilingual capital, and I certainly completely support that. I never miss an opportunity to promote that.
[Translation]
Senator Léger: Mr. Pettigrew, first of all, I would like to thank you for explaining that at the end of the day having all these duties vested in a single person results in greater consistency and better coordination. My issue was similar to Senator Munson's. I know that greater consistency and coordination was requested in last year's action plan, and it is important for you to explain and show everyone that it is that consistency which counts, not the list — which is rather long.
Moreover, if it is true that your duties as Minister of Health will take up two-thirds of your time — at least it will be health in French, so all the better — I cannot help but feel that health considerations will trump language. So please tell people. Canadians need to know that this is not a list, it is not a catalogue, but simply a move towards continuity.
Mr. Pettigrew: Absolutely. When the Minister of Health is also the minister responsible for official languages, that raises the profile of languages. I have told my deputy minister that I am very busy indeed with languages, intergovernmental affairs and health. I have asked my department to be particularly vigilant about languages, because I do not want to lay myself open to criticism, since this is my own department and since I am the minister responsible for official languages. The deputy minister feels even more committed, as does the department as a whole.
When I was young, my father — whom Ms. Scherrer knows well — gave me some advice. He said: "When you want something done, give the job to the busiest person you know. The busiest person will always find time to do it, because he is always busy and therefore very organized." That is advice I took to heart, and I often put it into practice. I have noticed that when you ask a very busy person to get something done, it gets done. So what my father said is quite true. We make sure we are organized, and we have extremely good people to work with, like Mr. Asselin and the others here. We know how to find the right people for the job.
I am convinced of that and I am doing my job. I swore on the Bible on December 12 and since then, people in communities know to what extent I am available. I have met people, I have gotten things moving and I am very much involved in my work. I must say that people sympathize with me and this gives me even more leverage to promote issues that are important to me.
Senator Léger: Mr. Coderre, I noticed in your titles...
Mr. Pettigrew: He also has many titles!
Senator Léger: There is one topic that we have never broached since I joined the Official Languages Committee: you are the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians. Never do we speak of official languages and aboriginals. I believe that our two official languages are crucial, and because of all the immigrants who come here, we must respect their languages, now and into the future. However, this does not affect the two pillars which are French and English. But this is never talked about.
Mr. Coderre: I hope you will be happy when I say, in the spirit of Louis Riel, that the Metis are also francophone. Senator Chaput, our chair, witnessed it for herself last Thursday, in Provencher, in Louis Riel's riding. I gave a speech, and indeed, spoke of that. When I meet with the Métis National Council, when I meet Métis groups, I also talk about that, the fact that many of our first explorers were francophones.
We have to make sure that when it comes to compliance with official languages, we must also consider linguistic issues within certain aboriginal groups. In fact, what is important for aboriginal groups — as shown in the exemplary work being done by my colleague — is also the whole issue of heritage and culture. There is a francophone aspect within communities and, in this sense, the role of the Interlocutor is to be something of a facilitator. We are working towards this. With respect to the Métis issue in particular, since the Pawley case, we are finally beginning to recognize the Métis as a nation. I think that the first step is to make sure that we enter into dialogue with Métis representatives and convey this message, which I have already done.
Senator Léger: I am happy to hear that. Especially since Aboriginals are Canadians, therefore automatically English and French.
Ms. Scherrer, my question is as follows. I do not know if I have the right title, I did not find the document; Communication Canada falls under Heritage Canada. Did it disappear? What happens to these poor people who work in the cultural field, which is the very essence of our country, of our identity? They no longer receive subsidies — we have received letters. What can I tell them?
Ms. Scherrer: Are you talking about the Communication Canada program which was the sponsorship program? We do not dare utter those words, but is that what you are alluding to?
Senator Léger: My God! Not that word! I did not think it was associated with that.
Ms. Scherrer: Communication Canada was not under Heritage Canada, it was under Public Works, in any case. Which program are you referring to specifically?
Senator Léger: Les Dames d'Acadie de chez nous, which received $30,000 per year. It has just been cut. But perhaps I am on the wrong subject.
Ms. Scherrer: We will both get on the same page. Indeed, it was part of the sponsorship program.
Senator Léger: Oh, really?
Ms. Scherrer: I am happy that you mentioned it, because that raises the sponsorship issue which was a very important issue for communities. This program had a lot of problems having to do with its management, but it catered to many events and promoted our regions. This is why, when Mr. Martin abolished that Communication Canada program on December 12, he asked the Department of Canadian Heritage to look into programs which would be able to help out these events financially.
I presume that if the organizations you are referring to received amounts of money from this program for years, they should have received a letter asking them to submit their application, not to Communication Canada, but to the Department of Canadian Heritage. Indeed, these programs performed well and pleased many communities by promoting culture, the arts, sports, and minority communities. Organizers and volunteers had worked very well, there was no reason for these people to be affected by the cuts. This time, we invited these people to submit their application to the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Senator Léger: They did not tell me that you had invited them to address their application elsewhere.
Ms. Scherrer: Did you get the impression that they had already received a letter?
Senator Léger: They complained, they said that they had always received subsidies, that $30,000 was not the end of the world.
Ms. Scherrer: Sometimes, $20,000 or $30,000 for community organizations is a major thing. They do a lot of work with these funds. Can you check to see if this organization received a letter? Otherwise, ask them to fill out an application.
Senator Léger: Very well, I will do so. The importance of Canadian Heritage, for me, is everything; culture is important.
Ms. Scherrer: For me too, senator.
Senator Léger: We expect it to be a very strong department.
Ms. Scherrer: I have a small title, but my umbrella is wide. I am pleased to speak before the committee because I want to call upon you, as well. I need more and more ambassadors now, like my colleagues, to make sure that we are able to send the message of how essential culture and official languages are to Canadian identity. It is one way to reach out to people in their communities. I always speak of programs and money. I wish I did not have to do so, because, as you say, it is the essence of Canada, it is what creates diversity, what forges bonds, what allows everyone to express themselves and to involve themselves in their community.
I agree with you, Heritage Canada stands at the heart of all this, but we need each and every one of you to promote culture in other ways than through cultural activities, budgets, or programs. It is more than that. It is the life and essence of all Canadians. The more numerous we are to share this, the more we will be to say how important it is. If you can help me to turn culture into an essential commodity, it would be wonderful because only then can we win some big points.
[English]
Senator Keon: As some of you may or may not know, I was a health administrator for about 30 years. In that capacity, sustaining linguistic duality was truly a tremendous challenge. I was able to sustain an equal number of francophone and anglophone doctors over the years. However, I was never able to sustain an overall equal number of francophones and anglophones at the institutional level when the total surpassed 700 people.
The reason was that, although the community we served was 30 per cent francophone and 70 per cent anglophone with nowhere else to go except our institution within a wide area, it was difficult to sustain linguistic duality outside the doctors, who are a different category of fish because they can be selected about 10 years ahead of completing their specialty education. That part was easier. Specifically, the financial penalty that we had to pay to sustain linguistic duality was huge. There is very little money in Ontario tied to sustaining francophone services for health. When one is saddled with decisions for the institution, one has to shift a major portion of the resources to sustaining linguistic duality in the institution; and the financial resources are just not available.
You fully appreciate the problems in financing health now as the Minister of Health, Mr. Pettigrew. I would hope that, if you remain in this portfolio for some time, Mr. Pettigrew, you could find some way of simplifying the bureaucracy between the federal and provincial levels. The action plan for official languages unveiled by Mr. Chrétien, under then Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Stephane Dion, looked exciting to me and I had hoped, before I retired, to implement a major, completely bilingual, prevention program. However, I just could not do it.
I know the system well because I have been in it for a long time, but I could not work my way through the bureaucracy to arrange that. In Ontario there is a superb Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs, Ms. Madeleine Meilleur, who is probably the best that the province has ever had. There is now an opportunity to do something worthwhile. However, dealing at such a macro level in all of this is difficult. The preoccupation with federal- provincial transfers in all of this means that you cannot be effective at targeting the promotion of linguistic duality in health care professionals.
I do not know whether you have had time to think about that. However, when this next phase of your life is over with, I would be interested in talking to you about that at some length. I would not burden you with that right now. Please respond.
Mr. Pettigrew: Senator Keon, indeed, it is a challenge on the health front, in particular. We have two issues here and I am glad that you are making me think about them more clearly tonight. For instance, there is the human resources fund from the Health Accord 2003, which we negotiated. We are working with the provinces on fine credentials acknowledgement, for instance. Sometimes they will be from people who come from francophone countries where certainly there could be a venue.
In the action plan elements on health, there is some money that we are ready to discuss with the provinces. You are quite right in saying that Minister Meilleur is a great advocate and a strong person with whom to partner on these issues. The provincial Minister of Health is also open to this kind of reality. The timing is quite opportune.
As well, we should ensure that there is a linguistic element in the primary health care transition fund that currently exists. We now have a primary health care transitional fund, which is access to doctors. It is a program that sunsets in March 2006. The money is there up to March 2006. We will do the evaluation of the program at that time and we could commit to it.
Thank you very much for your comments. This is a good venue of work to do and in which to invest.
Senator Keon: When you come back next time, would you consider looking at an accountability framework for your transfers, particularly to Ontario, to deal with linguistic duality in health care professionals? I appreciate the powder keg of accountability and transfer payments.
Mr. Pettigrew: As you know, it is a responsibility of the province. I do not want to micromanage the province. I am attacked in some corners for being too much of a centralist who tries to micromanage the provinces. In other parts of the country, I am told I am not strict enough with the provinces and that I should be much more authoritative. It is very difficult to find a balance as the health minister, in terms of the role of the Government of Canada.
I will take into account your wise words and certainly share them with Minister Smitherman and Minister Meilleur.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: I have three brief questions for Mr. Coderre. As a federal institution, like the 30 other federal institutions, are you obliged to publish an annual report?
Mr. Coderre: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: Do you believe in the bilingualism bonus?
Mr. Coderre: No. However, it still exists. This issue is being debated in collective agreement negotiations. I do not want to get into union business here tonight.
However, allow me to make a clarification. Bonuses will not solve the situation. It is important for us to ensure continuity. We must foster a bilingual culture through services offered as well as imperative staffing. Through our follow-ups, this goal will be met.
Senator Gauthier: This approach makes sense. However, I challenge you to consult unions and rally them to your cause.
Ms. Scherrer, you talked about the $100-million television fund. The Ontario organization GITE made an application to receive a small subsidy from your department. It is a very important group in the field of educational television. Your department turned down their application.
In January 2004, I wrote to you asking you to overturn that decision, if possible. On January 30, a certain Mr. Luc Rouleau answered my letter as follows:
I can assure you that the people responsible for this file at the department are aware of the concerns you have raised and are giving this their fullest attention.
Ms. Scherrer: You are not the only one promoting that organization. Last week, I met another one of my colleagues, an M.P., who had exactly the same concerns as yours. We agreed it would be quite suitable to get in touch with Ms. Mayer in order to decide how to proceed. I indicated I would do it in the following days. You are probably going to get an answer on this within a few weeks — I can confirm this verbally but not in writing.
Senator Gauthier: That is encouraging.
Mr. Pettigrew, you indicated you consulted the official languages communities in your role as the minister accountable for official languages. Did you consult them recently?
Mr. Pettigrew: I had the opportunity of meeting a number of their representatives and spokespersons.
Senator Gauthier: Who did you meet? Did you meet Mr. Arès?
Mr. Pettigrew: I met Mr. Arès as well as others in Ottawa, people representing the organization Vivre en santé — I do not have my agenda with me but I can give you other names.
Did anyone complain about not having met me even though they might have wished to?
Senator Gauthier: I would like you to send me, in writing, the simple guidelines and criteria which, as parliamentarians, we could use to follow the evolution of the action plan.
Mr. Pettigrew: We are preparing them at this time. As soon as they have been developed, it will be a pleasure to share them with you.
Senator Gauthier: When will we hear from you?
Mr. Pettigrew: As soon as everything is ready. If you want me to give you a date, I can tell you that it will be for June.
Senator Léger: My question follows on Senator Comeau's and is intended for Mr. Coderre.
Before the new Canada School of Public Service was set up, there were other schools. On a comparative basis, could we perhaps say that you had grade school, then high school, and now that this is university?
Mr. Coderre: I would not put any label on it. Were I to use an analogy, let's just say that as far as cars are concerned I am more interested in the windshield than in the rearview mirrors because I would rather look forward than back.
What is important for me is to make sure that everything is working, that the tool is a living one and that there is evolution. You get rid of the overlapping that used to exist and this gives you a nice complementarity. By being more inclusive, this school will be the pride of everyone, including the Senate.
Senator Léger: And you are not going to be shutting down other schools?
Mr. Coderre: It is a merger. We are setting up a school for the public service of Canada.
The Chairman: Ministers, in the name of the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, I would like to thank you very sincerely for having come here tonight.
We have given your assistants the document, the questions and the letter asking you to follow up on this before the election, should the election be called. We have set a 10-day deadline for you to send us your answer.
It will be a great pleasure to have you appear before us once more to answer some more specific questions that we are interested in.
The community has shared some concerns with us. I must tell you, both on a personal level as well as chair of this committee, that you have reassured us.
I would like to invite you not to forget Senator Gauthier's Bill S-4, which is now before the House of Commons. Bill S-4 was passed unanimously by the Senate and we are impatiently awaiting the results of your study.
Thank you very much and good evening.
The proceedings were suspended.
The meeting resumed.
The Chairman: The second point on the agenda is the election of a vice-chair. The new representative on the committee will be Senator Rivest. According to the Standing Orders, we must elect him as vice-chair.
Senator Keon remains a member of the committee but from now on he will be vice-chair of another committee. I am waiting for proposals.
Senator Léger: I nominate Senator Rivest as vice-chair of the committee.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure to adopt the motion, honourable senators?
Some honourable senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Motion agreed to.
Now on to our third point, the consideration of the draft budget for next year, from March 31, 2004 to March 31, 2005. I will give you a few minutes to read it.
You will find it includes some research already begun in the sphere of education. You will also find expenditures concerning the committee's travel to pursue this research in eastern Canada.
There is also a section on the festivities surrounding the 400th anniversary of l'Acadie as well as modest amounts for a conference that will be taking place in Quebec; Marie-Ève will be going there. She will then report back to us on it. You will also see an item concerning an invitation we got to go to Montpellier, in France, in the fall.
Our clerk has prepared a summary of those expenditures that total $318,155.
Senator Comeau: My question is about travelling to eastern Canada: Halifax, Charlottetown, Moncton and others. Are we visiting the capitals because it is easier?
The Chairman: Did we choose those cities?
Mr. Thompson (Clerk of the Committee): We chose those cities because of their easy access. Travelling will be by airplane.
The Chairman: Any further questions?
Senator Comeau: When we announce our travelling in the Maritimes, perhaps we should explain why we are going to Charlottetown, for example, rather than anywhere else in those areas that are less easy to get to but where there are more francophones. Visiting Halifax is not visiting Nova Scotia.
The Chairman: I would like us to talk about that some more. Is it really the best way of doing things? Maybe we could see if it is possible to do this trip another way.
Senator Comeau: Practically speaking, it is all right, but let us be careful how we explain this to people.
Senator Rivest: When we choose communities in a minority situation, in this case francophones in the Maritimes, it is more interesting, except that when we choose one community, we are excluding the others located 20 or 40 kilometres further down the road.
Senator Léger: Landing in Halifax and then holding our hearings elsewhere would mean what kind of change to our budget? Could we not travel by bus after that?
Mr. Thompson: First, we have to come up with a draft to get an approximate idea of the costs. The itinerary can be changed. Second, wherever we go, we can invite witnesses from other cities and reimburse their travelling costs if we want to hear all the witnesses.
Senator Léger: It is different when people travel to an anglophone environment and their travel is being paid for. We could use the same amounts of money to pay for the travelling expenses of groups participating in the committee's hearings that are being held outside of the area.
Senator Gauthier: I agree with what the clerk said. We can always invite groups to a specific location. The problem with airplanes is that they do not land just anywhere. For example, if we go to Charlottetown, we can have the Acadians from Summerside or elsewhere come over and pay for their expenses.
Senator Comeau: We can get back to this matter later. Maybe it would work in one province and not in another. For example, if we go to Pointe-de-l'Église, will that offend others somewhere else? We really have to be careful. That is something we have to examine before travelling.
The Chairman: Would you be willing to put the question back on the agenda so we can discuss more creative ways of dealing with it?
Senator Comeau: Nothing prevents us questioning the amounts.
Senator Gauthier: I have a suggestion that might help. We should have a document summarizing the problems we are examining. We could set out our projects and talk about the plan of action and our wishes concerning the communities. We could address those matters that could interest them while choosing the witnesses we would like to hear.
We are looking for information. We are not a group of tourists, we are travelling to gather information. That is why we should have a summary that we could then use to draw the bees to the honey.
The Chairman: There will be a summary produced and we will examine it before beginning our work in the fall.
Senator Gauthier: Senator Rivest knows what I am talking about. The Joint Committee on Official Languages had suggested the same kind of travel with a view to consulting. It is like dragging along a cart full of manure in the middle of July and trying to convince yourself it will not attract flies. We need a tightly targeted document that we can easily send to the associations to make them aware of our existence.
The Chairman: Right, that will be done.
Senator Léger: As for item E, will we wait until after the election? It is the 400th anniversary of l'Acadie. Should we talk about it?
The Chairman: Not knowing what the date of the election will be, we still have to discuss it because it is part of our budget for the year that began on April 1 and that will end on March 31, 2005.
Senator Rivest: We are not going to wait for the 800th anniversary. We have to go there, election or no election.
Senator Léger: That celebration involves a lot of money. We have to know what the goal of the Official Languages Committee is.
Senator Gauthier: The budget has to be approved before the money can be spent. Let's go to the Board of Internal Economy which, in any case, will slash the budget anyway.
Senator Léger: I understand that we should go immediately.
Mr. Thompson: If there is an election, we will lose the budget because that means there is a new Parliament. If there is no election, then we still have to be prepared.
The Chairman: The committee now needs a motion. It is moved by Senator Gauthier that the budget be adopted. Are you agreeable to adopting the budget?
Honourable Senators Yes.
The Chairman: The budget is adopted unanimously. Colleagues, we have given the three ministers a document prepared by Marie-Ève Hudon, our researcher, in order to obtain answers. The representative of the Official Languages Commissioner would like to get a copy of those documents. Are the members of the committee agreed that I should give her a copy?
Honourable Senators: Yes.
The Chairman: A copy of the answers we will be getting in 10 days will be sent to you.
The committee adjourned.